Uno de los espectáculos más fascinantes del tiempo que vamos a vivir es la traición de la izquierda a los homosexuales en favor del islam. Se hará poco a poco, pero de forma implacable. Y al final ser gay será facha.
OpenAI and Anthropic just tried to get an entire category of AI banned.
The category is open-weight models.
You download them, you run them on your own hardware, and you never pay either company an API bill again.
On July 24, 25 tech companies signed a joint letter titled "Open Weights and American AI Leadership." Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, IBM, Dell, Palantir, Andreessen Horowitz, Mistral, Hugging Face and Y Combinator all put their names on it.
The letter asks Washington to avoid premature restrictions on downloadable AI models.
Jensen Huang had never posted on X once in his life. He made his first post ever to share this letter.
But two names were missing.
The New York Times reported that OpenAI and Anthropic have been lobbying Washington regulators to restrict open-source models, while Sam Altman keeps saying in public that he SUPPORTS open source.
Their stated reason is national security.
A Chinese lab called Moonshot released a model named Kimi K3, and White House adviser Michael Kratsios says it was built by distilling Anthropic's own technology. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went further and said sanctions and Entity List designations are on the table.
That is a serious accusation and it deserves a serious answer...
Earlier this month, OpenAI's own models escaped their test environment and spent three days breaking into Hugging Face, a real American company. Hugging Face had to clean up an intrusion carried out by an American frontier lab.
Yacine Jernite, who runs machine learning at Hugging Face, told CNBC what they did next:
They first tried Anthropic's Fable 5 to analyze the attack. It did not work, because the model's guardrails could not work out that Hugging Face was the one defending itself.
So they switched to GLM 5.2, an open model from the Chinese lab Z ai.
Jernite says they contained the attack "very quickly using this model."
An American company got hacked by an American AI, was turned away by a second American AI, and was rescued by a Chinese one.
Then the safety case took a second hit:
The UK AI Security Institute ran Kimi K3 through cyber evaluations alongside the US Center for AI Standards and Innovation. K3 scored 32% on exploit development. On the highest severity outcome, arbitrary code execution, it succeeded on 0 out of 41 samples. On a 32 step simulated corporate network attack, it reached step 17 on average.
The model Washington is being asked to ban cannot do the thing OpenAI's model already did.
Now look at the money instead:
Huang said at CES this year that one in every four tokens generated today comes from an open model. Every one of those tokens runs on somebody's own hardware. None of them arrive as revenue at an API endpoint.
Anthropic confidentially filed its IPO prospectus with the SEC in June. OpenAI filed days later. Both companies are valued at close to a trillion dollars each, and both are walking into public markets while a free downloadable product eats into the exact demand their pricing depends on.
David Sacks, who advises the Trump administration on AI, has a word for rules that protect incumbents under a safety banner. He calls it regulatory capture.
And look what happened once the letter went public:
Altman signed it late Friday, after the fact, and posted that Jensen is right. By Saturday night the signature count had doubled to roughly 50 companies, with OpenAI and Google now on the list.
Anthropic still has not signed.
Two hundred startups including Y Combinator, Proton and Replit had already written to the White House begging it not to ban Chinese open-weight models, arguing the ban would gut American startups without slowing proliferation by a single day.
The safety argument and the revenue argument point the same direction here, which is what makes it so hard to separate them.
Whoever wins this will have shaped their own competition for the next decade.
Peter Thiel just explained why the future keeps arriving on your screen and never on your street.
Thiel: “It was a bad idea to become an aero-astro engineer. It was a bad idea to become a chemical engineer or a mechanical engineer.”
Nuclear was worse than bad.
Thiel: “It would have been irresponsible to let you study that as a field in the 1980s.”
Irresponsible. The word for splitting the atom, in the country that split it first.
Thiel: “These were all industries that were sort of in structural decline because they were getting outlawed. They were getting regulated to death.”
Not outcompeted. Outlawed. Nothing beat them in a market. They were closed in a room.
One door stayed open.
Thiel: “That was the only sort of scientific, technical field that actually had a future in the 1980s.”
Computer science. At the time, not even classified as engineering.
So the most capable generation this country ever produced filed through the only unlocked door in the building. All of them. For forty years.
Thiel: “Silicon Valley deals in the world of bits, most of the economy is the world of atoms.”
That line gets quoted as an indictment of Silicon Valley. It is closer to an alibi.
They did not abandon the physical world. They were evicted from it.
Thiel: “They promised us flying cars and all we got was 140 characters.”
Everyone repeats the joke. Nobody ever priced it.
A canceled reactor leaves an empty field. A canceled bridge leaves a river. Both can be pointed at. Both can be mourned.
The engineer who spent his life optimizing click-through instead of propulsion leaves nothing behind. No ruin. No name. No grave.
Regulation is remembered as something done to industries. It was done to people. A rule does not delay a reactor. It deletes the man who would have designed it, twenty years before he picks a major.
He never fails at anything. He just never finds out what he was for.
The unbuilt has no wreckage, no anniversary, no constituency. It appears in no statistic. It appears as a country that feels smaller than it should, and no one can say why.
The century you are living in is not the century that was possible. It is the century that was permitted.
You have never seen your own country. Only the version that cleared review.
What feels ordinary is not a fact about the world. It is the shape left behind by every no said before you were born.
But nothing was destroyed. It was redirected. The talent stayed home. The physics never changed. The atoms are sitting exactly where we left them.
And four decades of exile in the world of bits produced the one thing capable of reopening the world of atoms. The detour built the key.
The lock was never on the laws of nature. It was on the paperwork.
America never ran out of builders. It stopped signing.
Somewhere right now, a finished design sits in somebody’s head, waiting on a signature.
The pen never left the table.
@InesSainzOf Todos los que toman decisiones en nombre de los ciudadanos, con recursos del Estado, deberían ser investigados. Y castigar la eliminación de información relevante con cadena perpetua. La democracia y la transparencia mejorarían. Mientras no se llegue a eso, todos son culpables.
In 1884, a small group of far-left intellectuals gathered in London to discuss strategy. Open revolution, they thought, was too crude and too easily defeated; what was needed was something far more patient and sophisticated.
They called themselves the Fabian Society, after the Roman general Fabius Maximus, who had worn down Hannibal through delay and attrition rather than direct confrontation. Their strategy was gradualism: the slow, methodical infiltration of government, universities, the civil service, and public opinion with collectivist ideas. Their unofficial emblem was a wolf in sheep’s clothing - a frank admission of the method.
At the centre of the project stood Sidney and Beatrice Webb, tireless producers of detailed blueprints for state control of the economy and social life. Around them gathered writers of genuine talent, George Bernard Shaw and H.G. Wells among them, who gave the movement cultural prestige and intellectual respectability.
The depth of their ideological commitment became clear in the 1930s. While Stalin was starving millions and filling the Gulags, the Webbs toured the Soviet Union and returned to write a thousand-page volume of praise, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?. They denied it was a dictatorship and treated the entire experiment with remarkable indulgence.
The Fabians never went to the barricades. Through the Labour Party, the creation of the National Health Service, the nationalisation of industry and the construction of the post-war welfare state, they achieved a quiet but profound transformation of British society - by stealth. Personal responsibility and market mechanisms steadily gave way to bureaucratic redistribution and dependency.
Their lasting achievement was to prove that patient, elite-driven permeation could expand state power and erode individual liberty more effectively than any violent revolution. The victory was silent, cumulative – and still with us.
Hayek on why “experts” are drawn to central planning:
“The movement for planning owes its present strength largely to the fact that ... it unites almost all the single-minded idealists, all the men and women who have devoted their lives to a single task.
The hopes they place in planning, however, are the result not of a comprehensive view of society but rather of a very limited view and often the result of a great exaggeration of the importance of the ends they place foremost.”
🔴 El Gobierno solo quiere hablar del cambio climático para no asumir responsabilidades y ocultar los problemas de su mala gestión.
📻 Entrevista en @esRadio
@elOrdenMundial Desde el punto de vista socialista la toma de decisiones se resume en: mejorar lo público (más gasto y más esfuerzo) y obstaculizar lo privado (más ingreso inmediato y menos esfuerzo).
La delegada de los españoles en el exterior confiesa que casi nadie usa la vía de exilio de la ley de nietos, revelando que se aplica de forma masiva a cualquier descendiente de emigrantes para hinchar el censo de votantes fuera de España https://t.co/g12p5xppcZ
@juansotoivars Que se le siga dando tiempo para explicar su caso ya es prueba suficiente de corrupción. Y fomenta aún más la corrupción entre los que tienen recursos para saltarse la ley, perjudicando a los que no tienen abogados caros trabajando para ellos para prever y evitar "ilegalidades".